Standing Committee B

[Mrs. Marion Roe in the Chair]

Asylum and Immigration (Treatment of Claimants, etc.) Bill

New Clause 9 - Late claim for asylum: refusal of support: appeals

'In section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 (late claim for asylum: refusal of support), omit subsection (10).'.—[Mr. Oaten.] 
 Brought up, and read the First time. 
 Question proposed [this day], That the clause be read a Second time. 
 Question again proposed.

Marion Roe: I remind the Committee that with this we are discussing the following:
 New clause 10—Asylum support: back payments— 
 'In Schedule 8 of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 (provision of support: regulations) after paragraph 12, insert— 
 ''13 The regulations may make provision for the back payment of a regular support payment not received by the claimant''.'. 
New clause 11—Termination of NASS support— 
 'For subsection 94(3) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1999 substitute— 
 ''(3) For the purposes of this Part, a claim for asylum is determined at the end of such period beginning— 
 (a) on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the claimant of the associated termination of his or her support, or 
 (b) if the claimant has appealed against the Secretary of State's decision, and the appeal has been disposed of, on the day on which the Secretary of State notifies the appellant of the associated termination of his or her support, as may be prescribed.''.'. 
New clause 12—Victims of domestic violence: recourse to public funds— 
 'Individuals who apply for indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom under paragraph 289A of the Immigration Rules (Refusal of indefinite leave to remain in the United Kingdom as the victim of domestic violence) shall have recourse to public funds while their application is being considered.'. 
New clause 20—Late claim for asylum: refusal of support— 
 'For section 55(1) of the Nationality, Immigration & Asylum Act 2002 (c. 41) there is substituted— 
 ''(1) The Secretary of State may not provide or arrange for the provision of support to a person under a provision mentioned in subsection (2) if— 
 (a) the person makes a claim for asylum which is recorded by the Secretary of State, 
 (b) the Secretary of State is satisfied that the person's claim for asylum is manifestly unfounded, and 
 (c) the Secretary of State is not satisfied that the claim was made as soon as reasonably practicable after the person's arrival in the United Kingdom,
 for more than a period of 28 days after the person is notified of the Secretary of State's decision.''.'. 
New clause 21—Benefits to failed asylum seekers— 
 '(1) Save for the services listed in subsection (2), a person who is a member of a group listed in subsection (3) is ineligible to receive benefit in cash or kind at the expense wholly or partly of public funds whether nationally or locally raised. 
 (2) The services are— 
 (a) those services which are provided indiscriminately on a non-individual basis; 
 (b) treatment of infectious disease; 
 (c) treatment in response to a health emergency; 
 (d) care immediately before and after maternity; and 
 (e) such other services as the Secretary of State may by order designate. 
 (3) The groups are— 
 (a) those persons covered by section 7 of this Act; and 
 (b) in relation to any particular service or benefit, any EEA national— 
 (i) whose country does not offer a broadly equivalent level of service or benefit to a citizen of the United Kingdom in that country as is offered to a citizen of the United Kingdom in the United Kingdom; and 
 (ii) who has been resident in the United Kingdom for less than 12 months. 
 (4) The Secretary of State shall lay before Parliament guidelines on the interpretation of subsection (3) to which providers of services not exempted by subsection (2) shall have regard.'.

Andrew Turner: Welcome back to the Chair this afternoon, Mrs. Roe. When the Committee adjourned I was about to explain the purpose of new clause 21, and anxious enquiries were made over lunch as to whether I would keep the Committee sitting until 7 o'clock. I assure you, Mrs. Roe, that I am not paid by the word or the hour, so I intend to move on as quickly as possible.
 New clause 21 is born of the assumption, which many of us made when we first heard about the Bill, that all benefits to failed asylum seekers would cease. When we listened to the Minister and read the Bill in more detail we discovered that that was not the case. Therefore, I tabled the new clause to seek an explanation from the Minister as to why some benefits will remain available. 
 Subsection (2) of the proposed new clause consists of a list of benefits. Subsection (2)(a) refers to benefits that are 
''provided indiscriminately on a non-individual basis'', 
such as the police, coastguard services, refuse collection and road maintenance. I wondered whether prisons constitute a service ''provided indiscriminately''. It would be impossible to deprive someone of such services simply because fall under subsection (3) of the new clause. 
 It is essential to provide people with certain benefits and services, such as ''treatment of infectious disease'', for the benefit of the rest of the community. There are other benefits that it is humane to provide, such as 
''treatment in response to a health emergency'', 
or 
''care immediately before and after maternity''. 
I am sure that no one would argue that those services should not be available to people covered by clause 7, which outlines those people that the Government feel should receive no benefit. Therefore, I have included a 
 catch-all phrase in subsection (2)(e) to allow the Secretary of State to make other services available to people whether or not they fall under clause 7. 
 The new clause covers two groups, both of which cause resentment when it is believed that they have better access to services than those who have lived in the country for a long time. I shall refer to an example from what I am sure is the Minister's preferred read: the Daily Mail. It refers to a person whose asylum claim was rejected in May 2002 and who suffered a road accident in November 2002. As a result of the accident, the North East Lincolnshire primary care trust spent £440,000, and ongoing treatment will cost £4,000 a week or £208,000 a year. I am sure that such examples are few and far between but they cause resentment. That it why I suggest that persons covered by clause 7 should be excluded from the provision of services that are not included in subsection (2) of the proposed new clause.

Mark Oaten: I do not understand the connection between the article to which the hon. Gentleman referred and the points that he is making. Does he believe that the individual who had the road traffic accident should not have been given care in this country?

Andrew Turner: The cost of the emergency treatment is exempt from ineligibility, as covered by subsection (1) of the proposed new clause. However, it is a matter of judgment for the Committee whether such people should benefit from services such as the ongoing treatment provided once the individual is stabilised and there is no emergency. Our constituents make that judgment every time they read the Daily Mail. I gave that example because all sorts of other services are available to people whether or not they have the right to be in this country. The belief was that the Bill would exclude them from the receipt of such services, but a close reading of clause 7 shows that it does not.
 The second group worth discussing is nationals of European economic area countries who come to this country and benefit from our welfare services. They come from countries that do not extend to our nationals, should they visit them, benefits equivalent to those available to them in this country. That includes some European Union countries, and it is likely to extend when the eastern European countries join the EU later this year. I should like the Minister to justify why people should continue to receive that benefit on a very unequal basis.

Annabelle Ewing: I am listening with care. Are not various rights afforded to EU nationals coming here and to UK citizens going to EU member states, pursuant to European treaties and law? I should have thought that that would extend to EEA nationals who are not also EU nationals.

Andrew Turner: The hon. Lady is right. That is why I put it in my new clause. It is wrong that we should offer to people who have come briefly to the country a level of welfare service that is far above that available to our
 nationals should they go to their countries. I am happy for reciprocity of an equivalent level of service. I am unhappy, as are many of my constituents, when welfare services to which we have contributed for decades are offered to people who have neither contributed, nor lived in the country for a substantial period, nor offered similar services in their countries to our nationals should our nationals visit their countries. That is the argument for the new clause.

Beverley Hughes: We have had a wide-ranging debate on a number of issues concerning support and access to various benefits. I shall deal first with new clauses 9 and 20 because they relate to section 55 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 in relation to support for people when they first come into the country.
 Section 55 is part of a wider package of measures in the 2002 Act designed to create a more streamlined and cohesive asylum system. It was aimed, primarily, at tackling abuses that we were experiencing, and still are. I have mentioned some instances that intelligence shows us are still happening. We wanted to bring about a change in behaviour on the reasonable assumption that somebody fleeing persecution, or in fear of his life, would want to claim asylum in the safe country in which he had arrived as soon as possible. That would, surely, be as soon as he arrived on the UK mainland and came through a port. Why would somebody go through a port and claim some time later, in country? It was a reasonable assumption. It was also an attempt, through getting people to change their behaviour and claim at port, to break the power of the traffickers. The traffickers, the criminals who are paid to bring people in, say to them, ''Do not claim at the port. Go into the country, claim later and don't tell anyone how you came in. Don't tell anyone about me, or about the help that you had from me. Say nothing.'' In that way, their livelihood, their ability to charge large sums of money to get people into the country illegally, is protected. 
 We were thinking how to encourage people to claim at the port, and to be open and honest about the routes that they had used to get here and about some of the people who had helped them—people who are making big money. I received a briefing from another part of our security services about the work being done abroad. The extent to which people are put at risk on routes across northern Africa and various other places is horrendous. It is a wonder that the number of people dying and being placed in jeopardy by traffickers is not a national scandal. It is a serious problem, and we have attempted to get claimants to claim early by being open and honest, as it will help us to crack the power of some of the traffickers. 
 Implementation of that measure included safeguards to protect vulnerable people. For instance, families are exempt from section 55 of the 2002 Act, and support will be provided if it is necessary to avoid a breach of article 3 of the European convention on human rights. I can tell my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow (Mr. Gerrard) that human rights issues were considered from the outset. Some cases are 
 granted support immediately on that basis—for example, women who are obviously pregnant or who are willing to go through a process to confirm it, and those who are especially vulnerable and who clearly have no other means of support. Such matters are considered at the outset. 
 New clause 9 would create a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator. Under new clause 20, my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow would exclude the vast majority of cases—90 per cent. of them—from consideration under section 55. I cannot accept those new clauses. I would be the first to admit that, subject to the initial court cases, the implementation of section 55 has had a somewhat troubled history, but we have worked hard to rectify that. However, as a result of the changes that we announced in December, together with other measures on the reconsideration process, I hope to be able to assure them that the new clauses are not necessary. Although these are early days, the 72 hours provision and the reconsideration process are working well, and confidence is growing in our ability to manage the system.

Mark Oaten: Will the Minister explain what the Government meant when they promised that there would be a form of appeal for section 55? That was made clear to Labour Members in question and answer notes, and I wonder what has happened to that process. I thought that it was the Government's intention to include an appeal process.

Beverley Hughes: I cannot clarify that, but there seems to be some confusion about it in the hon. Gentleman's mind. My hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow made it clear that he understood, when that was included in the Bill, that it would not include the normal process of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator. That was why we discussed the reconsideration process, and it has been further developed. I am not sure what the hon. Member for Winchester was citing, but it surprised me because I thought that most hon. Members understood that the normal route of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator in relation to section 55 would not be available.
 As I said, the Home Secretary made clear on Second Reading that those who apply to the asylum screening unit within three days of arrival will normally be given support under section 55. That is already reducing the number of negative decisions. The figures for last week show that approximately 45 per cent. of applicants were granted support at the first application. That is an increase on the figures from some months ago. 
 One of the important issues is the reconsideration process, certainly from the point of view of the hon. Member for Winchester (Mr. Oaten). He was concerned about redress after the initial decision.

Neil Gerrard: I am interested in the statistic of 45 per cent. that the Minister just quoted, and would like clarification. The Minister said ''45 per cent. of applicants''. Does that
 mean 45 per cent. of applicants or 45 per cent. of those whose cases are considered for a section 55 decision, because some applicants—the people who apply at the port—are never considered in relation to section 55? Am I correct that people who do not apply immediately at the port, but who are looked at by the asylum screening unit, might also never get to a NASS section 55 consideration?

Beverley Hughes: The 45 per cent. figure is for those people who have asked for support and who therefore go through consideration under section 55.
 I shall give the hon. Member for Winchester the latest figures that I have on reconsideration cases, for 19 to 23 January. In that week, 72 new reconsideration cases were received. Most reconsiderations are based on claims under article 3 and, in that week, 54 claims were made under that article. Of those, 24 were conceded and 30 were refused again. There is a balance in the reconsideration cases that are coming through. I hope that I have demonstrated that serious consideration is given to article 3 cases and to issues related to change of circumstance. When the criteria are met, caseworkers make the decision to reinstate the support. 
 If, in such cases, there were a right of appeal to the asylum support adjudicator, we could be in a difficult situation. At present, there is a reconsideration, which is given effective and genuine consideration and results in about half of the cases brought under article 3 being conceded. The speed at which reconsideration is currently given is also important—90 per cent. of cases that week were reconsidered within 24 hours. If, for some reason, a person cannot have their case reconsidered within that time, they will be housed in emergency accommodation until the reconsideration can be done, so they are not just sent away overnight. 
 I say to the hon. Member for Winchester, in relation to his amendment, that if we were to institute a process of applying to the support adjudicator, that would certainly be a much longer process, after which people would then have the possibility of judicial review. Perhaps the hon. Gentleman is considering a process involving reconsideration, then appeals to the adjudicator, and then judicial review. We would be building into the system layers of reconsideration that I do not believe to be necessary. The model that I outlined would consist of a speedy reconsideration, with the sort of outcome that I mentioned, with the provision that if a case could not be reconsidered within 24 hours, we would house people, and with the bottom line of a judicial review if people were really unhappy with the reconsideration of their case. I hope that the hon. Gentleman will accept that that is a better model, given the numbers of people that we are considering.

Gwyn Prosser: Before we move on, I should like to say that I appreciate the need for and rationale behind section 55, and I know that it has been effective in the areas at which it was aimed. However, we were always concerned that there would be hard cases at the margins. The recent changes that have been implemented, such as the 72 hours and
 reconsideration, are helping. However, I still experience serious issues in my constituency. Just yesterday I received a note telling me that the local church had to be opened up to take in three absolutely destitute people who had knocked on the church door. For those hard cases that have fallen through all the safety nets, what advice can I give to my local minister, or even to the asylum seekers to help them?

Beverley Hughes: I am not aware of those cases. If my hon. Friend wants to send me any information I will of course investigate them.
 People do not just get one reconsideration—they can ask for one at any time. If their circumstances change, or if they really are destitute and could be regarded as coming close to the article 3 threshold, they can ask again for reconsideration. To asylum seekers, and to people trying to support them, the advice is: go back to the immigration and nationality directorate and ask for reconsideration. I have given a guarantee that that will be done within 24 hours, and if it is not, people will be put in emergency accommodation while it is done. 
 New clause 20 contains a very ingenious formulation. I know there is serious intent here, which I do not intend to diminish, but this formulation was very impressive, as my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow found a very neat way of effectively excluding about 90 per cent. of the people who might otherwise be considered under section 55. 
 At present the 'clearly unfounded' certificate, which his amendment refers to, is mainly applied only to claims from people entitled to reside in the 24 states designated under section 94 of the 2002 Act. Only around 10 per cent. to 15 per cent. of asylum claims are made by such persons at the moment. Clearly some of those people would be able to demonstrate, as people do at the moment, that they had made their claim as soon as was reasonably practical within 72 hours. We would expect that number, which is 15 per cent. at the most, to diminish, so I reckon only around 10 per cent. of our current applicants would be eligible to have section 55 applied to them. 
 On a more serious note, my hon. Friend will probably not agree with me, but I simply ask him to accept that this is a serious measure, designed not to make people destitute, but to get them to change their behaviour by claiming at port, and helping us to investigate the traffickers by getting us information. It would be worthless if we could apply the measure to only 10 per cent. of cases. 
 New clause 10 relates to back payments of asylum support. The effect would be to express power for the National Asylum Support Service to pay back payments of asylum support where a claimant has not received a regular support payment. From a legal point of view, we do not need that amendment. Where we consider it is necessary and appropriate to make payments, we are satisfied that we have the legal power to do so. 
 The hon. Member for Winchester drew our attention to an important policy issue in this area and wanted some comment on it. Since last summer, we have not made any back payments of asylum support, and I shall take this opportunity to explain why, what has been happening, and when we expect the situation to be resolved, which, I accept, needs to happen quickly. 
 NASS-supported asylum seekers make claims for back payments in a wide variety of circumstances but there are two broad categories—first, where a payment was missed because of a mistake on the part of NASS, or secondly because of a mistake, or a failure to collect, or a failure to give information, on the part of an asylum seeker, although the actual range of circumstances can go beyond those. In any case, the key question is not whether NASS can make a back payment but whether it is required to do so. 
 When it was instituted, asylum support was meant to be paid out to relieve destitution week by week. In the interests of managing the asylum support budget as best I can, as it is now more than £1 billion, I am bound to ask the following question: so long as the payments have been switched back on and the asylum seeker is no longer in any risk of destitution, is it necessary to spend public money going back and ''filling in'' missed payments from previous weeks? I have asked officials for further advice, including legal advice, on that question. The key question is whether, and in what circumstances, asylum support payments must be regarded as a legal entitlement. I am trying to clarify that.

Mark Oaten: I will say more later, but I am troubled by the direction in which the Minister is heading. She makes the assumption that a person—through no fault of their own—does not need the money because they survived without it for a couple of weeks. There must be circumstances in which individuals have borrowed money from charities on the assumption that it could be paid back. Just because the Minister believes that somebody has survived on nothing, one cannot assume that they have had no money, which they may need to return, from other sources.

Beverley Hughes: I am sympathetic on that point, and I had considered making a decision on that question today. However, because the legal advice from counsel is imminent—it is due in the next two weeks—and because I should be able to make a decision on the matter in the round by the end of February, I do not want to prejudice other options that might be available to me in relation to different circumstances in which asylum seekers themselves may be responsible. I do not want to go further than that today, but I am very sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point.
 In the case of an NASS mistake, it is unreasonable not to make back payments, but I would rather get the complete legal advice before making my decision, which I hope to do in the next four to six weeks. We have developed operational plans to resolve the backlog of back payments within four months; those 
 payments have been stopped during the last few months because we have been seeking clarification on the legal position.

Mark Oaten: I do not want to put the Minister in a tricky situation; she is obviously considering the matter in some detail. I think that she said that she does not intend to stop back payments for cases in which the error was caused by NASS rather than the asylum seeker, and that she is taking legal advice on what happens when the error is caused by the asylum seeker not giving the right information.

Beverley Hughes: The key question hinges on whether asylum support payments are a legal entitlement. Although I am sympathetic to the hon. Gentleman's point, which goes in a direction towards which I would naturally gravitate myself, I need to get advice on it. I do not want to compromise my ability to take a different position on cases in which there is no NASS mistake, but someone else has absconded or whatever. I hope that he will give me the benefit of the doubt. I will write to him about the position when I have the legal advice and when I come to a decision.

Neil Gerrard: That point interests me. I have seen cases in which NASS payments are not made directly to the asylum seeker, but to local authorities as payment for their rent. There have been problems and delays in such cases. If rent were involved, I hope that the money would always be made up. A person left with rent arrears through no fault of their own is in an impossible position.

Beverley Hughes: I accept my hon. Friend's point. I shall look at all the issues in the round shortly and I shall take cognisance of his comments.
 New clause 11 aims to ensure that, following a final decision on their asylum claim, NASS-supported asylum seekers receive at least 28 days' notice—or, if their claim has been refused, 21 days' notice—of the termination of their NASS support. Again, I hope to give hon. Members some reassurance based on the work that I have initiated. 
 The difficulty perceived by hon. Members is that, legally speaking, the clock starts ticking when the decision letter arrives. Their point is that notification of the termination of NASS support follows the decision letter, so asylum seekers and refugees might not pick up from the letter the fact that the clock has started ticking, and some of the notice period will have been eroded by the time they receive the NASS 35 letter. 
 We have been working on this issue. Although I recognise that successful asylum seekers face considerable difficulties when leaving NASS support and entering the mainstream benefits system, I do not want to change the legislation so that the grace period commenced on receipt of the letter terminating NASS support, because that would simply elongate the process. Instead, we have concentrated on improving existing processes and working with the Department 
 for Work and Pensions to make more effective use of the existing statutory period. Let me say a little about what we have done and what stage we have reached. 
 When we analysed the issue, we found that the main hold-up in accessing mainstream benefit before NASS support runs out arises from the issuing of the national insurance number by DWP. We have conducted a feasibility study in partnership with the DWP and the Inland Revenue and we have developed a process, although we have not yet rolled it out universally because we have only just got the results. As part of that process, however, successful asylum applicants are given a national insurance number with their decision letter. In that way, we eradicate at a stroke the problem of people not understanding the situation until they get their NASS 35 letter. 
 Our study covered applicants who were interviewed Liverpool and was a considerable success. We are in the process of drawing up a plan to roll the process out through the whole system. I hope that the hon. Member for Winchester will understand that doing things that way and ensuring that people receive the necessary information and their national insurance number with their positive decision letter will give people the full benefit of the 28 days so that they can quickly take advantage of mainstream benefits and other provisions, be that jobseeker's allowance, the new deal or whatever.

Mark Oaten: That is helpful in terms of applicants who are successful, but will the Minister comment on those who are not? What is the process for them?

Beverley Hughes: The main focus has been on successful claimants, because they can transfer to other benefits or into projects and processes that can get them quickly into work. Unless they are eligible for section 4 support, those whose claims are refused will have no other support available to them, because their NASS support will end. They will have also been refused permission to stay in the country and must think of returning home.

Mark Oaten: In the circumstances that the Minister describes, would someone who had agreed to voluntary removal not be removed for a certain period? One would want to ensure that proper support was in place at least until they were removed.

Beverley Hughes: We certainly want to ensure that people who receive a negative decision are told at the same time that their NASS support will end. In that way, they will have the full 21 days. That does not mean that people can receive benefits, but they can have the maximum period in which to leave their accommodation, if it is NASS accommodation, and work with us to return home.

Neil Gerrard: I appreciate what my right hon. Friend said about improving the system so that national insurance numbers are issued at the same time as status letters. I hope that that can be rolled out through the system. However, the problem is not so much the status letter as not receiving it. It is not uncommon for people to receive a letter saying that their NASS
 support has been cut off when they have not received the status letter. They may still not have received it some weeks later. In such circumstances, the first that they know about a decision is when their NASS support disappears. That tends to happen when someone has won an appeal, which causes a dislocation in the system in issuing notification to people. Does my right hon. Friend agree that such matters need considering?

Beverley Hughes: I shall look at the evidence. My hon. Friend has raised the matter before. In fact, he asked me about it in the House, and I gave him the answer to a different question because I did not hear him—the Home Secretary was whispering in my ear and telling me the wrong question. I accept that my hon. Friend has met people who have experienced long delays in receiving their status letter, but I am genuinely less convinced that that is happening now. If he has evidence, I should be grateful to receive it. We have tried to improve the system. I accept that there may still be work to be done at the point at which appeals are granted and I shall look into the matter.

Neil Gerrard: I will pass on evidence of a recent case to my right hon. Friend. The person won an appeal 15 months ago. He had his NASS support cut off, but has still not received his status letter.

Beverley Hughes: My heart sinks. If my hon. Friend can—

Neil Gerrard: I already have.

Beverley Hughes: Thank you.
 New clause 12 would allow individuals applying under the immigration rules for indefinite leave to remain as the victims of domestic violence to have recourse to public funds. I am grateful to the hon. Member for Winchester for acknowledging what I and other Ministers have done on several fronts for victims of domestic violence who are in an immigration situation, but the new clause asks us to go a stage further. We have made significant progress. First, on the need for support, we have ensured that domestic violence victims in such circumstances can gain access to supporting people-funded domestic violence services, such as refuges and housing-related support services. The supporting people initiative is a partnership of local government, service users, support agencies and voluntary organisations. The programme offers people who are vulnerable, for whatever reason, the opportunity to receive support in particular circumstances. 
 The hon. Gentleman will know that the supporting people initiative does not necessarily cover rent costs or living expenses. My colleague Baroness Scotland is continuing to talk to voluntary organisations and others that run refuges. I cannot say at the moment whether a further step has been taken on that front, but the supporting people provisions are a big step forward because they mean that a woman in such circumstances will have somewhere to go and will receive support under that programme. The voluntary 
 organisations that provide refuges and work with women who are the victims of domestic violence are certainly ready to provide that support. The Domestic Violence, Crime and Victims Bill will also further strengthen the rights of victims and witnesses, ensuring that they receive the support and help that they need. 
 As the hon. Member for Winchester acknowledged and the new clause recognises, the immigration rules now make specific provision for an application to be made on that basis. Where an application for settlement on the basis of domestic violence is successful, people are exempt from the fee for processing such applications that is a consequence of the introduction of charges. Finally, I have extended the types of evidence that can be used as proof of violence and relaxed the regulations relating to the forms of evidence that can be produced. 
 I hope that hon. Members accept that that set of four measures makes great progress in the way in which women who have unresolved immigration status but who are subjected to domestic violence by a man they have come here to marry can get practical help and support. They will find it easier to establish that there has been domestic violence because of the changes. We will continue to examine what is the best way of assisting victims of domestic violence. 
 The new clause does not offer a sensible way to proceed. Hon. Members have alluded to the problem: we are trying to strike a balance, and if we were to agree to the new clause, the perverse incentive to some people to use the provision to claim to be victims of domestic violence as a means of having their immigration situation resolved would be too great. 
 As the hon. Member for Isle of Wight (Mr. Turner) said, new clause 21 would mean that particular groups of people would be ineligible to receive benefits in cash or kind other than in certain listed circumstances, such as for treatment of infectious disease and in response to a health emergency. The new clause targets two classes of people; failed asylum-seeking families whose support would be withdrawn under clause 7, and nationals of the European economic area whose countries do not provide a level of service or benefit to UK nationals broadly equivalent to that which they receive here—and, further, who have been resident in the UK for less than 12 months. 
 I am particularly concerned that we should not enable people to benefit-shop—to go round successive European countries trying to get access to benefits in different nations. We have put in place a system to deal with benefit shopping and to ensure that those whose asylum claims have been rejected and who have exhausted their appeal rights are not entitled to support indefinitely. Schedule 3 of the Nationality, Immigration and Asylum Act 2002 prohibits support under a number of different provisions to particular classes of person: those who have refugee status abroad; citizens of other EEA states; failed asylum-seekers who do not comply with removal directions; and other people who are unlawfully in the UK. Furthermore, support for child-free adult asylum seekers will be withdrawn 21 days after their asylum 
 claim has been determined. Therefore, we have a range of measures to deal with people who might seek to benefit-shop. 
 There has been considerable recent press interest in the position of EU accession states. We had a debate about that on a previous occasion, and I want to re-emphasise the point that I made then, which is that non-working EU nationals can claim income-related benefits only if they satisfy in this country the habitual residence test. Each claimant's circumstances are carefully examined to ensure that tax-funded benefits are paid only to people with reasonably close ties to the UK. The factors to be considered in making that decision include the reason for coming to the UK, the length of stay, future intentions and any previous links with the country. We introduced that test to deal with benefit tourism. 
 In order to comply with our international obligations, the test has to be applied on a non-discriminatory basis. The hon. Member for Perth (Annabelle Ewing) mentioned the reciprocity in the agreements between member states, which means that UK citizens are entitled to benefits, provided that they satisfy certain conditions. In principle, EU nationals are entitled to the same benefits here, provided that they meet our conditions, one of which is the habitual residence test. 
 In summary, the thrust of our asylum and immigration reforms is to create a robust system. I do not think that the UK is a soft touch. I was grateful for the conclusion in the report published yesterday by the Home Affairs Select Committee, which said it is not true that the UK is a soft touch on the benefits front—or any other front in the asylum system—and that that view should not be propagated.

Andrew Turner: In a way, the right hon. Lady's answer reflects her earlier response to my hon. and learned Friend the Member for Harborough (Mr. Garnier). The problem is that recently the Minister of State, Department of Health, the right hon. Member for Barrow and Furness (Mr. Hutton), was talking about the need to prevent people from using the health service when they were not entitled to do so. Perhaps the measures that the right hon. Lady has put in place are not effective.

Beverley Hughes: That is a related, but rather broader, issue. When talking about eligibility for a wider range of public services than just income support of various kinds, access to health services, and so on, we would be talking not only about people who are here illegally, but about those who might have entered legally on visitors' visas with the express intention of trying to get some expensive health treatment at an NHS hospital.
 The Government are considering eligibility across the board as it is already defined. This is not my area and I have to be careful, but I understand that although the NHS has been able for a long time to check people's eligibility, it is not common practice. 
 One of the reasons it is not common practice is that it is difficult to prove somebody's identity and ineligibility at the point they receive the service. 
 It is well known that one of the reasons why the Home Secretary is concerned that we should move to a national identity card is that in addition to having an impact on illegal entry and working, there will be a benefit in its being used as a check on a person's eligibility to receive a broader range of public services—such as health services—and it will provide the health service with an easy way to check somebody's eligibility at the point of referral. We are with the hon. Gentleman on that point, but it is broader than the question of asylum seekers and illegal entrants; it would include other people who are entitled to be here, although not necessarily entitled to access services. The Government are working on that. 
 I am sorry that I cannot willingly accept any new clause in this large group. However, I hope I have assured hon. Members that we are with them in spirit on some of them. I should like to ask the hon. Gentleman to withdraw the motion.

Mark Oaten: There is some reassurance in what the Minister said on a number of the new clauses. We are just going to have to agree to differ on section 55, because I am fundamentally opposed to it. Despite the Minister's assurances about the appeal process, which I shall have to plough through, I am sure that a number of people were left with the impression that there would be a form of appeal system whereby there would not be a requirement to go to a higher court. If 45 per cent. of decisions are being overturned at the earlier stage of reconsideration, there are some issues around how the process is working. We can revisit that point at a later date.
 The Minister was helpful on back payments. I am grateful for her responses. She shares my concern that some things are fundamentally wrong: for example, the single mother I mentioned who has lost £400 over a three-week period because the money has not been paid. The issue, as I understand it, is complex and the Minister will need to take legal briefing on it. We look forward to that happening in a couple of weeks' time. I hope that the Minister will be able to report on it at some point during the next stages of the Bill. 
 I would be concerned if Ministers judged that even if someone had missed their payment there would not be a natural assumption that they would be entitled to it. I am concerned that the individual in the example that I gave, who might have survived for a couple of weeks by borrowing money, should be able to pay that money back. The hon. Member for Walthamstow made a good point about direct payments going into public bodies. In that example the bodies concerned would not be able to recover that money. However, the Minister has given us assurances that she will consider the issues sympathetically and I am happy with that. 
 On new clause 11, I am comfortable with the pilots between the DWP and the Home Office and the attempt to ensure that the individual knows that the clock starts ticking when the decision is taken. Both are good ideas. However, I am less comfortable that as 
 much energy is being invested in ensuring that the information is made as clear to those who are unsuccessful.

Beverley Hughes: I will check.

Mark Oaten: I am grateful. Although I do not necessarily agree with pilots for unsuccessful applicants, the lessons that are learned from pilots on the successful applicants should be transferred. In essence, a lot of that will be about the information and about how to get a good quality letter in the first instance, which should be easy to transfer to the unsuccessful cases. Indeed, it is probably slightly more important to get things right in those cases, because there will be a shorter period.
 Finally, new clause 12 concerns, for want of a better word, domestic violence. I acknowledge how far the Government have gone in tackling the issue and I mentioned that when I moved the new clause. At the end of the day, however, the Government measures have a missing link, which is that, whatever assurances might be given, unless people have the financial security to take the bold decision to leave someone who is inflicting domestic violence, there will always be the risk that they will stay in a dangerous and unhappy marriage. However, the Minister outlined some of the work done under the supporting people programme. That programme cannot give the full financial support that would be available under the scheme that we propose in new clause 12. However, I hope that the discussions in which Baroness Scotland will be involved could introduce a slightly stronger financial package to ensure that individuals have the freedom to make that choice. 
 There has been a little progress. I am certainly pleased with the comments on back payments and domestic violence, but we shall have to agree to disagree on section 55. Given the Minister's tone and her comments on a number of the new clauses, I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 17 - Migration statistics

'(1) The Secretary of State shall, each year, publish information on the number of persons subject to immigration control who—
(a) in the immediately forgoing year have arrived in or departed from the United Kingdom;
(b) are estimated in the year in which the information is published to have arrived in or departed from the United Kingdom; and
(c) are forecast to be arriving in or departing in the ensuing year from the United Kingdom; and
(d) the number of their dependants resident outside the United Kingdom.
 (2) Information published under this section shall, as far as possible, distinguish
(a) those persons—
(i) seeking asylum,
(ii) granted asylum,
(iii) removed having been refused asylum,
(iv) in the United Kingdom pending decision,
(v) in the United Kingdom pending removal, and
and the number of dependants of each;
(b) those persons with permission to settle in the United Kingdom and—
(i) doing so; and
(ii) not doing so.
(c) those persons who have been granted extraordinary leave, or are otherwise lawfully entitled, to remain in the United Kingdom and are—
(i) doing so; and
(ii) not doing so.
(d) the number of persons unlawfully in the United Kingdom;
(e) the age and gender of such persons covered by (a), (b), (c) or (d) above.
 (3) Where any information subject to this section is not available to him, the Secretary of State shall publish his best estimate.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.

Marion Roe: With this it will be convenient to discuss the following:
 New clause 19—Work-related migration statistics— 
 'The Secretary of State shall each year publish information on— 
 (a) the extent to which he forecasts that in the ensuing five year period the labour force needs of the United Kingdom— 
 (i) can be met by persons with a right of abode or a right to work in the United Kingdom, or 
 (ii) will have to be met by the issue of work permits to other persons; 
 (b) the number of work permits— 
 (i) issued, and 
 (ii) taken up, 
 in the preceding year; and 
 (c) the number of persons holding work permits who remain in the United Kingdom.'.

Andrew Turner: The new clause is simple and straightforward, and probes the Government's ability to provide information. It addresses a response that I received to a debate in Westminster Hall last year, when the Government were critical of information that I quoted from an organisation called Migrationwatch UK. I understand that at Home Office questions just over a week ago the Government were similarly critical of the group. However, Migrationwatch UK seems to be one of the few organisations that can estimate the number of people present illegally in the UK. The Home Secretary notoriously said that he did not have a clue how many there were, which suggests that the Home Office accepts that its machinery for making such estimates is inadequate.
 The new clause is an attempt to ensure that the information that is collected is published. The list of information sought is by no means exhaustive, but I received information from the Library to the effect that the immigration and nationality directorate last published an annual report in 2001 and that much of the material is now out of date.

Neil Gerrard: The hon. Gentleman is asking for a lot of statistics. I presume that he regularly sees the control of immigration statistics documents published
 by the Home Office, the last of which is dated 2002, as well as the quarterly statistics that appear regularly on the Home Office website.

Andrew Turner: I am certainly aware that such statistics are published, but I am also aware that the Government repeatedly challenge the statistics published by Migrationwatch UK and the Home Secretary says that he does not have a clue what the answers are to some of the questions that are justifiably asked of him.
 New clause 19 considers the Government's movement from a fairly restricted policy on work permits to a more liberal policy. We understand that that change is made in response to demand, but when unemployment in some parts of the United Kingdom is still as high as it regrettably is, it is hard to see that that demand is uniform. Will the Minister project the level of demand for labour in the United Kingdom and make an assessment of that demand so that the public can judge whether it is necessary for work permits to be issued, and for them to be issued in a particular area, or for a particular skill? Recently, there was a significant downturn in IT, yet work permits for IT personnel continued to be issued throughout—I do not know whether they still are.

Humfrey Malins: I thank my hon. Friend for tabling the new clause and for his contributions throughout our proceedings. New clause 17 draws attention to a gap in our knowledge relating to counting people into the country and counting them out so that we have a realistic picture of our population at any one time, telling us what proportion of those who come into this country on visas or by any other lawful method return after their visa has expired.
 There are many stories in the press about our exploding population, which we should take with a pinch of salt because we cannot know whether they are true. Not one of us can know accurately what the population of this country is at any one time. If anyone points me to the census as an accurate measure I will say ''Rubbish'', because the census becomes more of a farce as the years go by in terms of its ability accurately to portray how many people there are in this country.

Tony McWalter: Does the hon. Gentleman accept that it is somewhat incompatible with our libertarian tradition to have such close monitoring of people's movements and whereabouts? That is one of the reasons why the big step to start monitoring people in that way has never been taken by a Government of any persuasion.

Humfrey Malins: I am all for libertarian instincts, and I never commend trying to find out where people are at a given time or what their movements are. However, we need to know accurately how many people are in the country. Not many years ago, we counted people out of the country as well as counting them in. I believe that successive Home Affairs Select Committees have remarked on the fact that we do not nowadays have a method for counting people out. They have not been critical, but they have made the observation.
 I read what Migrationwatch UK says about the number of people who are coming into the country and staying here unlawfully. That is speculation; we cannot know. People's judgment is often coloured by what they read in the newspapers. If the newspaper reports day after day that the population of a country is increasing by 200,000 a year, after a while one believes that. People's fears can be increased by speculation, but what we do not have is knowledge—the lack of knowledge leaves an unhealthy vacuum. My hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight does us a great service in pointing out in the new clause that it would be helpful to know how many people have arrived in the United Kingdom in the previous year and how many people have departed. That covers lawful admissions; we cannot know—unless there is an accurate census—the position of illegal immigrants. 
 I have teased the Home Secretary about his comment that he has not got a clue how many illegal immigrants are here. However, if nothing else, it was honest—one does not know. It might be a dozen; it could be more. Like me, the hon. Member for Dover (Mr. Prosser), who represents his constituency in an assiduous fashion, knows that it is impossible to bring the port of Dover to a halt by stopping every vehicle and searching it. We do not have the ability to do that. We are in difficult territory and it is not a criticism when I say to the Minister that, while we do not have accurate statistics and it is not even certain whether we can get them—there is an argument for adjourning this discussion until we find out whether we can—those who are capable of being frightened by newspapers will be so frightened. 
 I accept the point made by the hon. Member for Hemel Hempstead (Mr. McWalter) about needing to approach the matter in a level-headed way. We need to have a proper debate about our infrastructure and the pressures, if any, on it in terms of schooling, housing, population trends and what we think is reasonable. Reading new clause 19, which my hon. Friend the Member for Isle of Wight moved so capably, reminds me that there is sense in having a dialogue with industry and commerce about how many people are needed with particular skills at a particular time. That is where we need help and more statistics. 
 I hope that I have expressed my views in a level-headed way. My hon. Friend has done us a service in bringing the matter before us and there is a lot of sense in what he says. Some knowledge of our population—is it growing or not, can we count people in and out, what about work permits and numbers?—would be a useful addition to a debate that we must not be afraid to have. We owe it to our constituents to have that debate on a regular basis.

Neil Gerrard: I accept that the statistics should be improved. However, there is no shortage of them: the quarterly statistics published by the Home Office give an enormous amount of information. Some of what is asked for in the new clauses is totally impractical. New clause 17 would provide that the Secretary of State is supposed to find out information about the number of
 people subject to immigration control and the numbers of their dependants resident outside the United Kingdom. How on earth he would do that is beyond me. In the last full year, about 13 million people are supposed to have entered through UK ports, although I think that is an underestimate. If arrivals from EU countries are included, I think that 20-odd million arrived, of which 13 million were subject to some immigration control as they entered on a work permit or as a visitor, for example. The bulk will have entered as visitors.
 We need better statistics, but not in the form suggested in new clause 17, of how many people have entered and left the country or sought and been granted asylum each year. One problem is that we get yearly and quarterly statistics that make it difficult to track what is happening. The people who applied for asylum this year and the people whose cases were decided were not the same people. Some of the latter group will have applied last year, while some of the cases of those applying this year will not be decided until next year. Annual figures often compare two sets of statistics that do not refer to the same people, which does not help anyone. If we want to improve statistics, we would get more profit from ones that we could use to track people . 
 Some Committee members will have discussed embarkation controls, and there are arguments on both sides about whether they would be a good idea. We used to have some embarkation controls, which I believe disappeared in the early 1990s—certainly before 1997. That happened because of the development of freedom of movement in the EU. If we want embarkation control to return, it would be sensible to have it by electronic means, perhaps when passports are more widely machine-readable. That would be better than trying to count and record figures manually, because the scale of the operation is so big that trying to work any way other than electronically would be futile. 
 The proposed new clause would not be particularly useful. However, we should consider improving the statistics that we use to identify trends, particularly by getting away from using year-on-year figures that never compare like with like.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow for his comments. A large volume of immigration and immigration statistics are already published by the Office for National Statistics and the Home Office. They may not appear precisely in the format requested, but they include figures on asylum, pre-entry control, on-entry statistics, after-entry control, settlement, enforcement and citizenship. Population and migration projections published by the Government Actuary's Department are also included.
 When statistics are not published, it is because it is not possible or straightforward to collect the information—my hon. Friend gave some examples of that—or we simply do not know how reliable or valid an estimate is. That is not a Government failure as, by 
 definition, people in a country illegally do not declare themselves. Although some countries make an estimate, they cannot be certain about the margins within which it is likely to be accurate. It is a difficult estimate to make. 
 The new clause would require the Home Secretary to publish estimates where statistics are often not available or where they are so inaccurate that they are of little use. The publication of inaccurate statistics is very unhelpful in informing the kind of measured and mature debate for which the hon. Member for Woking (Mr. Malins) rightly appealed. 
 We must not have that debate on the basis of inflammatory statistics that nobody knows are accurate, such as those produced by Migrationwatch UK. It produces its figures on the basis of a whole range of quite spurious assumptions that are secret, not testable. The strength of any statistics or any theory is the extent to which it is possible to replicate the production of those figures or that theoretical premise—how far is it testable. Migrationwatch UK produces statistics on the basis of untestable assumptions. This is because, while it often purports to be an independent organisation, in fact it has shown itself to be an organisation that is simply opposed to all migration, for various clients, and it cooks its books to suit its arguments. That is why, particularly, it has no validity.

Andrew Turner: The Minister's last sentence is a very serious allegation against an organisation.

Neil Gerrard: It is a matter of fact.

Andrew Turner: I am sure that the hon. Gentleman can demonstrate that. Can the Minister give some examples of what she calls the spurious assumptions?

Beverley Hughes: I will do, as I develop the point.
 My hon. Friend's point made about some useful but different ways of presenting information, particularly on asylum, is very important. We have been working on this in the Department, trying to produce figures on a cohort basis, so one can see what happens to a cohort of people from the point at which they claim asylum and at the various stages through the process. Now, we just about have the technology that enables us to do that—it is not perfect and we have to add on the various elements of the appeal processes, particularly at that end of the process, because those decisions are made by a body independent of the Home Office. It will be some time before we can produce those figures universally, because we can only start with the new cohorts and then build on that over the forthcoming period. That is an important point that I will move on to. 
 The kind of spurious assumption that Migrationwatch makes—for example in producing its very inflated figures, which the Government's Actuary's Department, let alone the Home Office, would dispute—is its assumption about failed asylum seekers and whether or not they leave the country. This is a group that is particularly difficult to estimate and yet Migrationwatch UK purports to be able to produce a figure to add to its total, which obviously 
 produces an inflated total. If I remember rightly, it has looked at work permits and has made some assumptions about long-term trends on the basis of some short-term increases in work permits in different sectors. If one takes a long-term look at work permits, it is clear that that assumption would not be valid because a short-term rise would be reflected on a long-term basis. They are examples of assumptions that are not justified.

Humfrey Malins: I have three quick points. First, I am very grateful to the Home Office for the much-improved asylum figures we get—statistics on a quarterly basis—which are a great improvement. It is a bit much to suggest that Migrationwatch cooks its books; the Minister may disagree with its figures, but I am sure she agrees that Sir Andrew Green's integrity is beyond reproach.
 On at least one occasion, either a Home Office official or Minister, or the Home Secretary, admitted before the Home Affairs Committee that the net annual increase in our population is similar to that alleged by Migrationwatch.

Beverley Hughes: The UK population is estimated over the next 25 years to rise from 58.8 million in 2002-03 to 63.2 million in 2026, of which the contribution made by inward migration—that is what we are discussing—will be less than 0.3 per cent. It is a very small proportion of the increase. We disagree with Migration Watch, whose figure of the contribution of net inward migration is much more substantial. I do not often lapse into colloquialisms such as ''cooking the books'', so perhaps I should clarify what I meant. I stand by my belief that Migrationwatch is an organisation with a particular political view; it does not support migration in any form, and produces statistics that are based on unverifiable assumptions that purport to support its point of view. If hon. Members think that that term is inappropriate, I am happy to have explained that I believe that that is what the organisation does.
 A number of hon. Members commented on embarkation. Generally, we can count people in, but the current difficulty is counting people out. I am grateful to my hon. Friend the Member for Walthamstow for the reminder that it was a previous Conservative Government who abandoned embarkation controls in 1994, largely, as he said, because of free movement rights in the EU. The problem is that although we are keeping embarkation under review, it requires an electronic system. We know that at least 90 million people come in to the country each year, and there is probably the same order of movement of people going out. Most of that traffic is UK citizens coming in and going out for holidays and business, and a manual system of checking people when they leave the country would raise exactly the same issues as hon. Members discussed earlier about carriers and photocopiers—on a mega scale. We could do that only with an electronic 
 system. The borders initiative that I talked about earlier will in the long term enable embarkation controls, if we want them. 
 New clause 19 would require the Secretary of State to publish various statistics on labour force needs. Although the Treasury considers trends in the labour market, and we work closely with various sectors to identify shortages, the main route whereby people enter the country to work is, of course, the work permit. As hon. Members will know, work permits are demand led; prospective employers—not prospective employees—apply for them. They operate in agreement with a sector where employers tell the Government either that there is a shortage, or that they have tested the resident labour market and cannot employ anybody. They are demand led. That is the crux of how we envisage the potential for foreign nationals to contribute to our labour force. I do not think that requiring the Home Secretary to publish five-year forecasts would be the best way. As I have said at Home Office questions, we are not trying to have a command, predetermined economy, in which targets for growth in certain areas are set using a predict and provide approach to how many foreign nationals we need. However, a flexible approach to our economic growth and the labour market needs that support that growth enables us to respond flexibly and in a reasonable time scale to changes in different sectors. That is what the work permit procedures do: they enable employers to identify shortages and situations where they cannot employ from the indigenous labour market and to use a work permit as a route in. That is the right way forward. 
 I ask the hon. Gentleman to seek to withdraw the motion. I do not know whether I have satisfied him, but I hope he will understand why I cannot accept his new clauses.

Andrew Turner: I understand why the Minister cannot accept the new clauses, but I want to make three points.
 First, where statistics do not exist and other bodies have attempted to fill the void, and where the Government do not agree with the assumptions on which those attempts are based, it would surely be wise for them to talk to those bodies about the basis on which such assumptions could be agreed, so that projections can be made available. I believe that one of the greatest contributions to poor race relations in this country is the fact that people believe that there are a lot of illegal immigrants here. The Government say that they do not know. I do not blame them for not knowing, I accept that it is difficult, but I hope that they will try to find a way of agreeing, if not with Migrationwatch, with other reputable organisations, a basis on which to make estimates of the number of people here who should not be here and projections of future population. 
 I applaud the flexible approach. I was not implying for a moment that there should be a command economy; I was implying that there should be some understanding of the country's needs, based on a range of assumptions. That is not a command economy. The problem with a flexible approach, especially a 
 demand-led flexible approach, without an understanding of the country's needs is that if an employer decides that he cannot afford to pay the market rate for, say, an IT professional, but is perfectly happy to pay significantly less than the market rate, he goes to the Government and asks for a work permit and the Government more or less say yes, because they have no basis of information about the needs of the economy. That leaves the Government vulnerable not only to criticism within these walls but to distrust from those outside. I hope that we may return to the issue.I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion. 
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn.

New Clause 18 - Responsibilities of masters of vessels, etc

'(1) The master of a vessel used to convey a person who is the subject of immigration control to the United Kingdom—
(a) shall deliver to an immigration officer a list (''the manifest'') of all such persons whether passengers or crew;
(b) shall not remove the vessel until authorised to do so by an immigration officer.
 (2) Failure to comply with subsection (1) shall be an offence.
 (3) An immigration officer shall authorise the removal of the vessel—
(a) when all persons so listed have reported to an immigration officer; or
(b) in such other circumstances as he considers appropriate.
 (4) In order to ensure that any person so listed either reports to an immigration officer or returns to the vessel the master shall have authority over that person as if he were still aboard the vessel.
 (5) The Secretary of State may, by order subject to the approval of each House of Parliament, amend the Civil Aviation Act 1982 and the Merchant Shipping Act 1995 to secure that the master of a vessel has power to arrest and deliver up to an immigration officer any person aboard or having disembarked from that vessel whom he reasonably believes may be subject to immigration control and not to have reported to an immigration officer.
 (6) The Secretary of State may, by order subject to the negative procedure, amend any regulation in order to secure, subject to any enactment, that the master of a vessel have power to arrest and deliver up to an immigration officer any person aboard or having disembarked from that vessel whom he reasonably believes may be subject to immigration control and not to have reported to an immigration officer.
 (7) The Secretary of State may, by order subject to the approval of each House of Parliament, make regulations under this section to secure that the driver of a train, motor car or similar vehicle or a person authorised by him shall have power to arrest and deliver up to an immigration officer any person aboard or having disembarked from that vehicle whom he reasonably believes may be subject to immigration control and not to have reported to an immigration officer.
 (8) In this section ''vessel'' includes any craft whether used by land, sea or air and ''master'' shall be construed accordingly.'.—[Mr. Andrew Turner.]
 Brought up, and read the First time.

Andrew Turner: I beg to move, That the clause be read a Second time.
 We are nearly there, Mrs. Roe. The new clause deals with some of the problems relating to the destruction of documents, but places on an individual a clear responsibility to deliver the people whom he 
 transports to the United Kingdom to the immigration services, so that they can properly be interviewed and, if appropriate, admitted to the UK. 
 I am prepared to accept that some parts of the new clause may be unnecessary, but I wrote it in response to earlier debates, in which we concluded that it was possible for people to disappear airside and at airports, only emerge a considerable time later and then possibly bypass immigration control. If that is true in airports, I am sure that it is equally true, or perhaps more true, in sea ports and, particularly, areas that are not canalised. 
 Subsection (1) asks for a manifest—a list of people, whether passenger or crew, from wherever they come—which is dealt with to a certain extent in the Government's new clause 16. It also suggests that an immigration officer should be able to control the removal of a vessel. 
 Subsection (2) makes it an offence not to provide the manifest and subsection (3) gives certain instructions about when a vessel might be removed. They are not exclusive and they do not prevent an immigration officer granting permission for a vessel to be removed under other circumstances. Their purpose is to ensure that those people who disembark could be re-embarked if they do not have the necessary papers, do not claim asylum and are therefore not admitted to the United Kingdom. 
 Subsection (4) provides the masters of vessels with some authority over people to ensure that they are delivered to immigration control. It is built on the hypothesis that anyone who disembarks should either report to immigration control or re-embark. The Minister might say that other people control matters airside sufficiently well to ensure that when people disembark an aeroplane, they reach immigration control and do not find their way around it. If she can provide that assurance, she will have demonstrated that the new clause is unnecessary. 
 Subsections (5) to (7) describe some of the powers that masters of vessels have, whether their vessels are ships provided for both in common law and in the Merchant Shipping Act 1995, or aeroplanes covered by section 94 of the Civil Aviation Act 1982. For the most part, those powers would need to be extended, and subsection (5) provides the Secretary of State with the power to make that extension. Subsection (6) provides him with the power to amend regulations. I have been unable to find any enactment that addresses the situation of the master—if that is the appropriate word—of Eurostar or the driver of a bus, so I have included them in subsection (7). 
 The purpose of the new clause is to elicit from the Minister whether she is satisfied that the situation between the time when somebody leaves a vessel and arrives at immigration is foolproof, and whether she accepts that those people who deliver people to the United Kingdom have some responsibility for ensuring that they reach not only these shores, but, where provided, immigration personnel.

Beverley Hughes: I am grateful to the hon. Gentleman because he is trying to think beyond the scope of the Bill, consider problems and take the
 opportunity of new legislation to deal with them. I applaud that spirit, but with regard to initial provisions of the new clause, we already have sufficient powers, and the later provisions address problems that are not of a high priority in the Bill.
 Paragraph 27(2) of schedule 2 to the Immigration Act 1971 allows the Secretary of State to make an order requiring captains of ships or aircraft arriving in the UK to furnish to immigration officers a passenger list and particulars of members of the crew of the ship or aircraft. The relevant order to the legislation is the Immigration (Particulars of Passengers and Crew) Order 1972, as amended. It states that, if so required by an immigration officer, the captain of a ship or aircraft must furnish to that officer a list of the names and nationalities of all passengers arriving on the ship or aircraft. In the case of a ship, the captain must furnish to an immigration officer, within 12 hours of the arrival of the ship, a return in the form attached to the order containing particulars of all members of the crew arriving on the ship. In the case of an aircraft, if so required by an immigration officer, the captain must furnish to that officer a list of the names, dates of birth and nationalities of all crew members as soon as is practicable after arrival. The order has also been extended to apply similar provisions to trains arriving in the UK. 
 A captain who fails without reasonable excuse to furnish that information when required to do so commits an offence under section 27A(1) of the Immigration and Asylum Act 1971, and is liable on summary conviction to a fine of not more than level five on the standard scale or a maximum of six months' imprisonment, or to both. 
 We discussed paragraph 27(b) of schedule 2 to the 1971 Act in relation to carriers. The paragraph allows immigration officers to request carriers to provide ''passenger information''. That applies to ships or aircraft that have arrived or are expected to arrive in the UK and to ships or aircraft that have departed or are expected to depart from the UK. It has also been modified to apply to trains. As Members will know, because we talked about it earlier today, a request may be made in relation to a particular ship or aircraft of the carrier, to particular ships or aircraft of the carrier, or to all the carrier's ships or aircraft. A request must be in writing, and it must specify the date on which it ceases to have effect, which must be no more than six months from the date on which it is made. It also specifies what is meant by ''passenger information'', although we will of course amend that as a result of today's discussion. 
 Existing legislation therefore covers the provision of information covered in subsection (1) on a request basis, and failure to comply with such a request is an offence. To date, no need has been identified to require the information on any basis other than by request. The extra burden that the new clause would place on the master of a vessel would not be proportionate to any defined immigration control need, nor would it be proportionate to prevent a vessel departing until 
 specifically authorised to do so by an immigration officer because of the consequent loss of time and money. 
 Equally, it is not proportionate or necessary to grant the master of a vessel authority over passengers or crew until he has reported to an immigration officer. Again, that would meet no identified immigration control need. The problem is not that people do not report to an immigration officer, with or without documents, but that they do not have their documents when they claim asylum. That is the sort of immigration need that we have been discussing today and throughout our consideration of the Bill. That is the problem that we are trying to solve. Therefore, we do not need to legislate to give masters of vessels authority over passengers and crew. I am not even sure that it would be practical. 
 I hope that the hon. Gentleman will be assured that the Bill already provides us with the necessary legislation, and that he will be persuaded to withdraw the new clause.

Andrew Turner: How frequently have the powers have been used?

Beverley Hughes: I cannot answer that off the top of my head and without being able to obtain the answer from my officials. I will write to the hon. Gentleman.

Andrew Turner: I look forward to receiving the Minister's letter. I beg to ask leave to withdraw the motion.
 Motion and clause, by leave, withdrawn. 
 Question proposed, That the Chairman do report the Bill, as amended, to the House.

Beverley Hughes: Before you complete proceedings, Mrs. Roe, I thank you and Mr. Taylor for the excellent way in which you have chaired the Committee. You have taken us efficiently and expeditiously through our business, some of which was very difficult, in a calm and constructive atmosphere.
 I thank members of the Committee. We have had some difficult issues to discuss. This is an emotive area for many people. As we have discussed today and in previous sittings, some of the issues before us raise real dilemmas for members. I am particularly grateful for the way in which members have approached that. Although some members of the Committee had reservations, were unable to agree with me in the end and are not fully satisfied with the Government's point of view, they nevertheless entered in to the spirit of the debate in a constructive and courteous way. I thank them for that. 
 Even before the Bill leaves us for another place, we clearly have a fair bit of business to carry out on Report. I look forward to continuing our discussions then, but I thank everybody at this point.

Humfrey Malins: I add my thanks to you, Mrs. Roe, and to Mr. Taylor, not only for the efficient way in which you have chaired the Committee, but for the very human way in which you have both done so. I also express all our thanks to those others who have been
 of support and help to us: the Hansard reporters, the Doorkeepers, the police and in particular the Clerk of the Committee, Mr. Alan Sandall, who has been a tower of strength to all of us. I share the Minister's thoughts; we had good debates in a rational and calm fashion. I would like to thank her personally for the way in which she approached the Bill.
 On these Benches, we appreciated hearing from Government members, who had quite a lot to say on various aspects. Everybody on the Committee has played a full part. In particular, I would like to thank my hon. Friends and other Opposition members for their contributions. 
 We all leave a Committee with only one word on our minds, depending on the Committee. This time, my word might be ''rocket''. Perhaps I can challenge my hon. Friends to produce the same amendment on the Floor of the House, as it would be a most interesting debate. I have found this a good humoured and sensible debate, well whipped by everybody concerned, if I am allowed to say so. We look forward to returning to some important issues at a later stage.

Mark Oaten: I associate myself with both closing statements, and pass on my thanks to you, Mrs. Roe, and to Mr. Taylor for the calm way in which the Committee has been chaired.
 I also associate myself with the comments made by the hon. Member for Woking about the Minister. I have found her extremely clear on complex issues. She has explained matters in plain, simple talk, which is refreshing from a senior politician. Where possible, she has gone to great lengths to look at compromises and to try to find a way forward. I welcome that. She has taken away quite a few things to look at and report back on; we have not forgotten that and we will make sure we look at those very carefully. 
 In conclusion, this is the first Committee that I have ever served on. If I am honest, I was not particularly looking forward to it. I have actually found myself enjoying large parts of it, although I will keep my enjoyment quiet as I do not intend to do many more. However, it has been an enjoyable experience. My one thought will be about handouts and the prospect of laptop presentations in future Committees; I am sure that that is something that you will rule out of order in the future, Mrs. Roe.

Marion Roe: On behalf of my co-chairman, Mr. David Taylor, and myself I would like to thank the Minister and the hon. Members for Woking and for Winchester for their kind remarks. I am sure that the other remarks made about those associated with the Bill have been noted. I say thank you again for all the comments.
 Question put and agreed to. 
 Bill, as amended, to be reported. 
Committee rose at nine minutes past Four o'clock.